Total Pageviews

Tuesday, 29 September 2015

Space Oddities : Metropolis

Fritz Lang`s
Metropolis (1927)explores the developing movement
of German Expressionism along with taking film making to a next level, featuring
extreme camera angles and creative use of scaling through the set. Over the
decade the sci fi genre had developed far from the use of straight on camera
angles to extreme point of view shots. Although despite the exponential
potential, Metropolis stayed true to the nature of German Expressionism with
the slanted buildings with monumental scale and blacked out buildings. However,
unlike Das Cabinet Des Dr Caligari (1920)
the extreme abstract shapes were more subtle and looked more like buildings
rather than a chaotic fantasy world. This may be because of how Das Cabinet Des
Dr Caligari was filmed directly after by children, her hands extended over them
in saintly grace. From this first meeting, she is responsible -- indirectly, at
first -- for bringing Freder down to the level of the people, away from his
home in paradise. It is notable that this first appearance to Freder occurs
directly on the heels of Freder's dalliance with the nameless maiden in the
garden. If the scantily clad woman is Freder's Mary Magdalene, then Maria is
clearly Freder's Mary. Assuming the roles of both prophet and mother, Maria
first foretells of Freder/Christ's coming, and then is herself the agent of
that arrival when Freder descends to the lower city in pursuit of her.World War
two where artists expressed their despair through their artwork. Since this
film was made much later, the expressionism content was less extreme.

With the unfortunate event of scenes disappearing, Metropolis took
the same direction as previous silent film Das Cabinet Des Dr Caligari where
they used text to replace the scenes and dialogue which were lost. Although the
font used was much clearer and the translation made communication clear, the
storytelling did not make the film clear and there were a lot of questions and
plot holes being asked at the end of the film. Although the main plot was
answered and there was a linear style, there was hardly any dialogue in crucial
scenes, for example when Maria was being chased by the inventor. The gaps and
logical puzzles of the story (some caused by clumsy re-editing after the film
left Lang's hands) are swept away by this torrent of images. “To enjoy the
film, the viewer must observe but never think,” the critic Arthur Lennig said,
and Pauline Kael contrasted its “moments of almost incredible beauty and power”
with “absurd ineptitudes.” Even when the plot seems adrift, the movie itself
never lacks confidence: The city and system are so overpowering they dwarf any
merely logical problems.” Roger Ebert, Great Movie: Metropolis (1998).

The build-up towards the slight insanity of Freder was portrayed
interestingly by the swirling images of his beloved in the embrace of his father,
where the obvious betrayal and confusion takes over the screen. There is also
the scene where it is shown him falling through the darkness into Hell. Since
religion becomes a huge theme in the film where the two female leads are
represented by a symbol of purity and a figurehead for the seven deadly sins. “From her first appearance, Maria also evokes
the Virgin Mary, entering Freder's garden surroundedby children, her hands extended over them in saintly grace. From
this first meeting, she is responsible -- indirectly, at first -- for bringing
Freder down to the level of the people, away from his home in paradise. It is
notable that this first appearance to Freder occurs directly on the heels of
Freder's dalliance with the nameless maiden in the garden. If the scantily clad
woman is Freder's Mary Magdalene, then Maria is clearly Freder's Mary. Assuming
the roles of both prophet and mother, Maria first foretells of Freder/Christ's
coming, and then is herself the agent of that arrival when Freder descends to
the lower city in pursuit of her.

It is no
coincidence that the robot built by Rotwang takes the form of Maria, an evil
doppelganger that spreads anger and fear, the antithesis of Maria's vision of
peace. Our first glimpse of the robot finds it beneath an inverted,
five-pointed star, a pentacle -- a sigil long associated with ceremonial magic,
especially that involved in summoning outside forces. Indeed, Rotwang's android
does seem to carry within its husk something more sinister than simple ones and
zeroes. It springs into being from the mind of man, rather than divine
guidance, formed not of Adam's rib; its unnatural birth instead costs Rotwang
his hand. . . a sacrifice he does not regret.”David Michael Wharton ,
Crucified To The Machine : Religious Imagery In Fritz Lang`s Metropolis (2003)

Although the acting of the pair was theatrical
the tense side of it made the pair, especially fake Maria, much more believable.
Where the odd twitch in her close-ups and the constant devious seductive smirk
gave a clue to the audience that she was the fake. What also helped distinguish
the two was how robotic the fake’s movements were. Even when dancing the
unnatural swerve of her hips was cringing to look at since she simply looked
ridiculous yet the men in the scene were biting at the bit to have her. That
being said, the idea of objectifying women wasn`t new in the film industry in
the 1920s, especially around the period of flapper girls where sexualisation
was a keen aspect of the trend.

Symbolisation of the slaves in this film was believable and fitted
well with the silent film genre. The acting made the slaves seem like mindless
zombies working like parts of a machine with no will of their own. When the
workers are seen for the first time their arms work in continuous actions on
repeat where they don`t stop and have to be dragged away from their work to see
the real world and the position of the bosses that put them in such terrible
conditions. It was only until the end where we see how hopeless these slaves
are where their only sanity is being held by a holy figure which they trust in
enough to sacrifice their children unknowingly. Although the slaves have no
huge part apart from tools used by Jon Frederson used for power gain. The
audience can relate to the system of lower class and upper class as such
political roles are happening in today’s world too.

The chase scene was incredibly done, where light and shadows and the concept of
purity being clad in white and the surrounding darkness gave immense atmosphere
to the scene. Where the torchlight gave a look of a cage surrounding the female
lead and wherever she moved to escape she could not escape the cage without
being followed and trapped like a deer in headlights. Seeing this it was foreshadowed
that the audience knew she could not escape and this was her demise. To add to
the horror the inventors face within the skeletons was a shock in itself, where
there is no respect for the dead and he blends in with the haunting
surroundings.

The scientist’s house looked more like from Dr Caligari, with extreme shadows
and no light within the dark. : What first struck about the set compared to Dr Caligari,
was how the buildings differed tremendously throughout the decade of German Expressionism,
apart from one house. The house of the inventor. There was several similarities
between the crazed scientists in both where their lairs are blacked out with no
form of lighting from within. When the main character enters there is only darkness
and a cavern of mystery. That being said, Metropolis did take the horror a step
further when it came to atmosphere as this was one of the earliest forms of
doors opening and closing. A classic feature in modern horror films.

Although this film is
seen as a classic and the start of its genre the ridiculous storyline may be its
downfall and it`s perks as some qualities are deemed just to ridiculous from today’s
perspective. Where today we see WW2 planes in 2026 as laughable, back in 1927,
seeing motor cars which were seen as dated then were also laughable. “The motor
cars are 1926 models or earlier. I do not think there is a single new idea, a
single instance of artistic creation or even intelligent anticipation, from
first to last in the whole pretentious stew; I may have missed some point of
novelty, but I doubt it; and this, though it must bore the intelligent man in
the audience, makes the film all the more convenient as a gauge of the circle
of ideas, the mentality, from which it has proceeded”. : H.G Wells, H.G Wells
on Metropolis (1927).

3 comments:

Could you nip back into this review and try and sort out the formatting please? You have a large chunk that is highlighted in white, making it impossible to read! You have also centred your opening paragraph...I will have another look at it tomorrow :)

Ok, I can read it all ok now :)Right then,... firstly, always make sure that you proof read before posting - there are a few sentences/paragraphs that don't make a lot of sense (maybe you were editing and forgot to replace something?), here for example,

'This may be because of how Das Cabinet Des Dr Caligari was filmed directly after by children, her hands extended over them in saintly grace.'

and here,

'World War two where artists expressed their despair through their artwork. Since this film was made much later, the expressionism content was less extreme.'

Also, make sure that you italicise all quotes, as it makes it clearer to your reader what is your wording and what is from another source. You have what appears to be a MASSIVE quote by Wharton there - ideally the quote should just be a line or two, just the very relevant bits picked out. If you want to use chunks from the same longer quote, you take out the bits that are not relevant and replace them with 3 dots... but the rest of the quote should still make sense.

Make sure that you are not just copying chunks of text direct from other sources and not referencing it - for example, you say,

'From this first meeting, she is responsible -- indirectly, at first -- for bringing Freder down to the level of the people, away from his home in paradise...' however these same words appear later on as part of the large quote. Likewise with some text taken straight from Ebert's writing. It is ok to paraphrase another source, but it still needs to be referenced, so you could say for example,

'Roger Ebert notes that although ...blah blah blah....' (Ebert, 2010)

Don't forget that you also need to label and reference your images, in an illustrations list after the bibliography.